* Distribution requirements are a way of demonstrating widespread support for a ballot measure or candidate because registered voters from a variety of political subdivisions signed petitions for the ballot measure.

* Distribution requirements are a way of demonstrating widespread support for a ballot measure or candidate because registered voters from a variety of political subdivisions signed petitions for the ballot measure.

<!--Carry over law page sections to signature pages when reformatting this section (User:TylerM)-->

These charts show distribution requirements for initiative signatures. In some states, candidate qualification petitions and recall petitions also have a distribution requirement. Those requirements are not displayed below.

These charts show distribution requirements for initiative signatures. In some states, candidate qualification petitions and recall petitions also have a distribution requirement. Those requirements are not displayed below.

* In December 2006, [[Nevada]]'s county-based distribution requirement was declared unconstitutional by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] in the case of ''[[ACLU v. Lomax]]''. In 2007, the [[Nevada State Legislature]] passed a new distribution requirement in [[Nevada Senate Bill 549 (2007)|Nevada Senate Bill 549]], which according to the ACLU is "virtually identical" to the law struck down in ACLU v. Lomax. On September 28, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro invalidated [[Nevada Senate Bill 549 (2007)]], saying it is unconstitutional, and ordering Secretary of State Ross Miller not to enforce it.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10592088 ''Mercury News'', "Federal judge strikes down Nev. ballot measure law", September 29, 2008]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/30085029.html ''Las Vegas Review Journal'', "EDITORIAL: Petition requirements", October 2, 2008]</ref> Later, the Nevada State Legislature enacted a distribution requirement based on U.S. Congressional districts, rather than counties.

+

* In December 2006, [[Nevada]]'s county-based distribution requirement was declared unconstitutional by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] in the case of ''[[ACLU v. Lomax]]''. In 2007, the [[Nevada State Legislature]] passed a new distribution requirement in [[Nevada Senate Bill 549 (2007)|Nevada Senate Bill 549]], which according to the ACLU is "virtually identical" to the law struck down in ACLU v. Lomax. On September 28, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro invalidated [[Nevada Senate Bill 549 (2007)]], saying it is unconstitutional, and ordering Secretary of State Ross Miller not to enforce it.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10592088 ''Mercury News'', "Federal judge strikes down Nev. ballot measure law," September 29, 2008]</ref><ref>[http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/30085029.html ''Las Vegas Review Journal'', "EDITORIAL: Petition requirements," October 2, 2008]</ref> Later, the Nevada State Legislature enacted a distribution requirement based on U.S. Congressional districts, rather than counties.

* ''[[Citizens in Charge v. Gale]]''. This lawsuit in federal court is pending. It challenges the state's county-based distribution requirement for candidate petitions in Nebraska, among other challenge to Nebraska petition law.

* ''[[Citizens in Charge v. Gale]]''. This lawsuit in federal court is pending. It challenges the state's county-based distribution requirement for candidate petitions in Nebraska, among other challenge to Nebraska petition law.

Line 133:

Line 133:

{{defeated}} '''[http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/630FF1CB1DB20786872576B700584A7D?Open&file=SCR003_rn2. SCR 3]:''' This law would have added a [[distribution requirement]] to the petition process for {{icafull}}s in Colorado, which currently does not have one. Specifically, it would have:

{{defeated}} '''[http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/630FF1CB1DB20786872576B700584A7D?Open&file=SCR003_rn2. SCR 3]:''' This law would have added a [[distribution requirement]] to the petition process for {{icafull}}s in Colorado, which currently does not have one. Specifically, it would have:

* Required that 5% of the minimum total number of signatures on petitions must be gathered from residents in each of Colorado's U.S. Congressional districts.

* Required that 5% of the minimum total number of signatures on petitions must be gathered from residents in each of Colorado's U.S. Congressional districts.

−

* Required a [[supermajority vote|60% supermajority vote]] to pass an {{icafull}}, with the exception that it would only take a simple majority vote to repeal provisions of the [[Colorado Constitution]] in existence prior to the 2011 odd-year election or to certain amendments related to [[Colorado State and Local Debt Limitations, Amendment 61 (2010)|Amendment 61 (2010)]]. The resolution was defeated by the [[Colorado State Senate]] on May 11, 2010 on a 20-13 vote with 2 Senators not voting<ref>[http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?OpenFrameSet ''Colorado General Assembly'' "Senate Session Journal", May 11, 2010](See Page 1390, Lines 44 and 66)</ref>.

+

* Required a [[supermajority vote|60% supermajority vote]] to pass an {{icafull}}, with the exception that it would only take a simple majority vote to repeal provisions of the [[Colorado Constitution]] in existence prior to the 2011 odd-year election or to certain amendments related to [[Colorado State and Local Debt Limitations, Amendment 61 (2010)|Amendment 61 (2010)]]. The resolution was defeated by the [[Colorado State Senate]] on May 11, 2010 on a 20-13 vote with 2 Senators not voting<ref>[http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?OpenFrameSet ''Colorado General Assembly'', "Senate Session Journal," May 11, 2010](See Page 1390, Lines 44 and 66)</ref>.

Where there are distribution requirements for initiative petitions, the political jurisdiction varies. In some states, the distribution requirement is spread out over a state's counties (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, Wyoming). In other states, it is calculated based on state legislative districts (Alaska, Montana, Utah) or U.S. Congressional districts (Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada).

Arguments

For

Supporters of distribution requirements have argued:

Distribution requirements are a way of demonstrating widespread support for a ballot measure or candidate because registered voters from a variety of political subdivisions signed petitions for the ballot measure.

Requirements by state

These charts show distribution requirements for initiative signatures. In some states, candidate qualification petitions and recall petitions also have a distribution requirement. Those requirements are not displayed below.

"The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot. If an initiative petition contains signatures from a single congressional district which exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required signatures, the excess number of signatures from that congressional district shall not be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether the petition qualifies for placement on the ballot." (Section 273, Paragraph (3), Mississippi Constitution)

Direct: 10% of votes cast in most recent gubernatorial election in at least 26 of 29 state senate districts.Indirect: 5% of votes cast in most recent gubernatorial election in at least 26 of 29 state senate districts.[3]

States without

Lawsuits

In 1969, in the case of Moore v. Ogilvie, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Illinois county-based distribution requirement saying that it "applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely settled counties and populous counties alike, and thus discriminates against the residents of the populous counties in the exercise of their political rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In 2002, in the case of Gallivan v. Walker, the Utah Supreme Court struck down Utah's county-based distribution requirement, declaring that the initiative right is a "fundamental right implicit in a free society" and that the distribution requirement impinged on it. The Utah State Legislature then replaced the county-based distribution requirement with a state senate district-based requirement, which is currently in effect.

In December 2006, Nevada's county-based distribution requirement was declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit in the case of ACLU v. Lomax. In 2007, the Nevada State Legislature passed a new distribution requirement in Nevada Senate Bill 549, which according to the ACLU is "virtually identical" to the law struck down in ACLU v. Lomax. On September 28, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro invalidated Nevada Senate Bill 549 (2007), saying it is unconstitutional, and ordering Secretary of State Ross Miller not to enforce it.[4][5] Later, the Nevada State Legislature enacted a distribution requirement based on U.S. Congressional districts, rather than counties.

Citizens in Charge v. Gale. This lawsuit in federal court is pending. It challenges the state's county-based distribution requirement for candidate petitions in Nebraska, among other challenge to Nebraska petition law.

Petition sponsors in states with distribution requirements face the difficult decision of whether to comply with a requirement that may be unconstitutional, or filing a federal lawsuit. Since the costs of such litigation can easily exceed $100,000, and since the litigation might take years, as a practical matter, most petition sponsors elect to comply with a law that may be unconstitutional.

Statutory proposals

Colorado

dSCR 3: This law would have added a distribution requirement to the petition process for initiated constitutional amendments in Colorado, which currently does not have one. Specifically, it would have:

Required that 5% of the minimum total number of signatures on petitions must be gathered from residents in each of Colorado's U.S. Congressional districts.